South Korea’s presidential office backs four‑year, two‑term limit in constitutional talks

South Korea’s presidential office said on Friday that it favours a four‑year, two‑term presidential system paired with stronger powers for the National Assembly as the country debates constitutional change. A presidential official told reporters at the presidential press centre that “We believe a four‑year, two‑term presidential system with enhanced authority for the National Assembly has the highest level of public acceptability.” The official added that the administration recognises concerns raised by critics who describe the current system as an “imperial presidency.” “The idea is to address the limitations of an excessively powerful presidency through a two‑term presidential system,” the official said.

The presidential office stressed that it is not proposing a parliamentary cabinet system. The official also said the administration is not endorsing any particular model of a power‑sharing presidency. Constitutional amendments in South Korea require approval by at least two‑thirds of the 300‑member National Assembly before they can be put to a national referendum. The official said it is desirable for constitutional revision to be discussed and pursued by the National Assembly, and that the president’s principle is that reform must proceed through consensus.

Some South Korean media reported that People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae‑ho recently played golf with President Lee and discussed the need for constitutional revision to reduce the concentration of power in the presidency. Kim quoted Lee as saying that reform should proceed “even if it means shortening my own term.” The presidential office declined to confirm the golf meeting, saying it was part of the president’s private schedule.

The Lee administration’s first national policy task includes proposals for a four‑year presidency with the possibility of one additional consecutive term and the introduction of a presidential runoff election. By advocating a limited two‑term presidency paired with a stronger legislature, the office signals an attempt to balance executive power while acknowledging public wariness of an overly dominant president.

The emphasis on National Assembly consensus and the rejection of a parliamentary cabinet model suggest the administration prefers a presidential system with checks rather than a shift to parliamentary governance. Whether the proposal gains the required two‑thirds Assembly support and passes a referendum remains uncertain, but the framing puts the debate squarely on term limits and legislative empowerment.

Public stakes are evident in the official’s reference to the highest level of public acceptability for a four‑year, two‑term system, indicating that the administration is responding to perceived voter sentiment about executive overreach. The acknowledgment of criticisms labeling the existing arrangement an “imperial presidency” shows awareness of concerns that a strong presidency may undermine democratic checks and fuel calls for reform. By insisting that constitutional change be pursued through the National Assembly and based on consensus, the office highlights the procedural legitimacy required for any amendment, underscoring that any shift must survive a super‑majority vote in the 300‑seat legislature before facing a nationwide referendum.

The mention of a possible presidential runoff election, included in the administration’s first national policy task, adds another layer to the discussion of how to legitimise executive authority while dispersing power. The official’s refusal to endorse any specific power‑sharing model suggests a cautious approach, leaving open various institutional designs that could strengthen the legislature without abandoning the presidential framework.

Overall, the presidential office’s position reflects a strategy aimed at recalibrating the balance between executive strength and legislative oversight, responding to public demand for limits on presidential tenure and influence, while adhering to the stringent constitutional amendment process that demands broad parliamentary agreement and eventual popular ratification.